Robert Mugabe: Joys and Perils of leadership

“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.”

The above was a quote from the fifteenth-century political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli as he described the perilous and unenviable task of taking on a leadership role in the establishment of a new order of things. As the quote so eloquently puts it whoever takes the reigns in the new dawn usually faces next to unreal pressure to deliver results from his own followers. Followers who still may lack the belief and the conviction that their movement will yield dividends, and those who had previously benefited from what had been. Many if not all revolutionary leaders find themselves in this position and this was the case for the recently departed Robert Gabriel Mugabe as he took charge of the new republic in 1980.

This is a man who divides opinion the world over. Some see him as a liberator, emancipator, and prophet of Pan- African-ism. Whilst others see him as a tyrant whose single-minded pursuit for power led a once prosperous nation to its knees. When you are in charge for as long as he was logic dictates that you are going to create a lot of friends and even more so enemies. So with tributes as well as condemnation coming towards Mr. Mugabe over the last day, I have decided to take a more objective look at the legacy of one of the most infamous African if not world leaders of all time.

1980 the dawn of a new era

The year is 1980 and between the 17th and 21st of April, the people of Zimbabwe took to the polls to elect their president in the first democratically held elections. On the ballot are three parties essentially with any chance of winning this election. The Zimbabwe African People’s Union ZAPU is represented by Joshua Nkomo. The United African Council led by Abel Muzorewa, and the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front ZANU-PF led by Robert Mugabe.

At the time the incumbent party the Rhodesian front had insured that ZAPU and ZANU-PF had both remained in exile as a Bush war had been brewing between the sitting government and both of the military wings of these parties. This war had resulted in multiple casualties on both sides — and as the elections came ever closer these once ostracized forces had finally been allowed safe passage into the country — for the sake of campaigning and other formalities associated with democracy. By the end of the election, it had become evidently clear that Mugabe’s party would be victorious and for the first time in the nation’s history, a government chosen by the majority would take charge.

One should understand that a victory for ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe had not been expected by the British foreign office as well as the Rhodesian Front. Joshua Nkomo was expected to be victorious by the British. Whilst the incumbent party had hoped that Abel Muzorewa would have been able to obtain enough votes to ensure that Mugabe and his party would not have the majority needed to govern outright. This all failed to materialize, and by-elections end, these bewildered parties had no choice but to support the new prime minister at the time. After all, tensions were still rife and any objection to these stunning election results would cast the nation and the region back into a mode of confrontation.

So as he settled in for his first term in office he had to deal with a rival party that had its own military wing. A military wing that possessed a considerable number who were well trained and heavily equipped with some of the best Soviet weapons at the time. Also, Mugabe had to deal with a Rhodesian Front that harbored a great level of mistrust towards him. Not to mention the former colonial master who shared similar sentiments to the latter and had little to no faith in his ability to not only govern effectively but maintain peace within the country.

Naturally, consensus-building a necessity for unity becomes a difficult endeavor to undertake — as those you seek to build consensus with have a lot more to gain in your failure than in your success — such an atmosphere of distrust always breeds catastrophe. Remember the geopolitical environment before world war 1 and 2. This was a similar atmosphere of distrust on a smaller scale.

It would be in this extremely tense and volatile environment that mister Mugabe would take charge at the establishment of a new era. His newly born government was straddled with enemies on every side. From those who had benefited from what was present before and lukewarm followers who carried an I will believe it when I see it mentality. Much like previous leaders who had been in this hazardous position before — from biblical leaders like Moses leading the children of Israel out of Egypt in their quest to reach the promised land — Napoleon after the turmoil of the last decade of the 18th century — or Mao and his Chinese communist party — Mugabe faced the unenviable task of unification.

Swimming in such a shark-infested ocean, this would have been a man who saw enemies all around him. Naturally, the paranoia and distrust that would have been prevalent throughout this strained environment would begin to take hold. The perils of leadership placing great stress on the new man at the helm. Such emotions can push men to perform acts of greatness and terror in equal measure and the emotions felt by this man would have been exacerbated by increasing tensions between ZIPRA and ZANU PF.

This could be attributed to the issue of conscription into the newly formed Zimbabwe National Army or ZNA for short. Feeling disenfranchised because of the lack of fruition of the grandiose promises given to ZIPRA forces as they toiled in the arid forests of Southern Africa during the liberation struggle — a large amount of ZIPRA members would refuse conscription into the newly formed national army— with their forces carrying out attacks within the area of Southern Matebeleland between the period of 1981–83.

Western media outlets at the time would report of dead tourists — attacks on farmers and attacks on ethnic minorities within the area — something which worried the sitting government in Harare as safety in the new state looked to have been compromised — an image the new government could ill afford.

The reaction was one that would then become a feature of the then Prime Minister’s reign. Over- Retaliation and a violent crackdown. Perhaps it was out of fear or a desperate attempt to try and ensure that unity would be achieved and peace established between the two former wartime allies? Either way it would remain a blemish on Mugabe’s resume for the rest of his reign.

However the reaction here typifies the difficulty in trying to establish one's self and throughout history, we have seen the perils of struggle and war a developing state would go through, boil over into even more conflict. Just look at the United States after its war of independence and the turmoil and subsequent battles which ensued. Napoleonic era France as it faced siege from a multitude of nations who saw its new order as a threat — the constant battles King David underwent in order to establish the state of Israel and unite the Twelve tribes.

Naturally in a new order of things conflict becomes bread and butter and resistance second nature to most. And so it was with this mentality that Mr. Mugabe would continue and obviously it would lead us to our current standing right now. Unity would follow a few years later, with the signing of the Unity accords in 1987, bringing together the two wartime allies. However, the ethnic tensions which had existed since the 1800s between the Matebeles and Shona would continue to fester.

The 1990s- Land Reform

At Lancaster house, it had been agreed that the purchase of land would be undertaken on a willing buyer willing seller basis. To assure the feasibility of this endeavor, the British Government would provide the funding necessary. Empowering the new incumbent regime to purchase land for the settlement of previously disenfranchised members of the community. Below are the figures detailing how much headway had been made.

Constitutional Constraints 1980–1985 (5years)- 60000 families settled, total hectares covered 2 147 855

Land Acquisition Act 1985, 1985–1990 (6 years )- 10000 families, total hectares covered 447 791

Land Acquisition Act, 1990, 1992–97- 789 645 hectares acquired

Total years 16- total number of hectares 3 385 291

These were the statistics for the years presiding the events of the fast track land reform which occurred at the back end of the century. As seen above, there had been certain agreements put in place largely during the Thatcher and John Major years. These agreements seemed to have been effective, however, this would all change at the advent of the labor party’s return to power under the leadership of Tony Blair.

After this British foreign policy under Blair seemed to take a massive shift. Blindsiding the Mugabe regime by pulling out of talks to fund a new wave of land reform projects proposed. Perhaps the then-president felt a sense of betrayal and frustration. The anger of this bamboozling being heightened by growing pressure at home — caused by an economic crisis—the first of any significance since independence. As well as the emergence of stronger opposition within the country.

Growing dismay amongst a disenfranchised local population, who had felt that they had not gotten enough since the ushering in of the new era would be the third and final strike. Hastily a fast-track land reform program was initiated. Creating long-lasting ramifications between the west and Zimbabwe.

Once again we see the near impossible and unenviable task that Mr. Mugabe faced at the establishment of a new order of things. Trying to build consensus abroad whilst attempting to steady the ship and maintain peace in an extremely volatile and uneasy situation at home. Nine times out of ten achieving a compromise which is the objective of any negotiation becomes a near-impossible task, and such is the difficulty any new innovator faces. With so many different forces each with their own differing interests all looking to get a foothold and gain the upper hand in the new establishment conflict is always one wrong or right decision away depending on which end of the stick one lies. So more often than it is a case of damned if I do, damn if I don’t for any leader in such difficult circumstances.

Isolation years

Land Reform would lead to international condemnation and applause in equal measure. From those of a Pan- African leaning he was hailed as a protector of the ideal of a liberated and fully emancipated Africa. Whilst some particularly in western quarters saw him as the very antithesis of all the values they hold dear. International sanctions and growing distrust would lead to a mass migration of highly skilled workers and the deterioration of the economy following soon afterward.

Once in isolation, those dreaded emotions of distrust and paranoia creep into one’s mind. This would have pushed a person once seen as a liberator to begin to perform acts of apparent terror as he desperately attempted to hold on to the levers of power to which his legacy would have been greatly linked.

One of my favorite movies of all time the Dark Knight typifies this with an extremely striking quote that applies greatly to this scenario. “You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain”. This is a statement that has great resonance here and in attempting to right some of the wrongs previously held, or maybe out of greed and anger the President might have overstayed his welcome and seen himself turn into the very thing he had vowed to fight.

Whether people regard Mr. Mugabe as a hero or a villain is up for debate. Like I said the man divides opinion the world over, but one thing we can definitely say is this. Taking the reigns in times of crisis and at the establishment of a new order is no easy feat. In looking at how many other African states have descended into anarchy after independence — with all-out war becoming second nature — rebel movements becoming part and parcel of the furniture — perhaps Mr. Mugabe’s record might not be as bad as it is made out to be in certain spheres.

One thing for certain is this, hate him or love him he is an individual who left his mark on history. Instead of trying to confine his work to history’s back pages, learning from his shortcomings would help other nations around the world build the necessary consensus and relationships to ensure a solid-state and limited conflict at all times.

Because taking charge at the establishment of a new order is no easy feat. And in many instances, it is usually only years later that people sit and take notice of the impact for better or for worse a leader would have had on the world.